Personality tests for teams: how to use them effectively [2026]
Which personal test suits your organisation (and why that is not the real question)?
“We are looking for a personality test for our team.”
“We want a team building to get to know each other better.”
“We hesitate between DISC, MBTI or Enneagram.”
It sounds logical. You want to get to know each other better or in a different way? Or there is tension in the team, communication is strained, energy is low or the culture feels diffuse. So you're looking for... a test.
But here is the real question: what if you are not looking for a personality test, but for a better organisational architecture? Or just engaging with each other?
A test is not a solution.
A test is a tool.
The key question is:
At what organisational layer is your challenge?
Every test is wrong! But some tests are actually useful.
In other words: All models are simplified representations of reality and are inherently inaccurate, but they can nevertheless provide valuable insights, predictions and useful applications.
In this article, I take you from single models to a broader framework: from test thinking to organisational culture. from Personality Test to strategic deployment.
In this article
Why organisations use personality tests
Personality tests are usually deployed with good intentions:
- Creating more self-insight
- Encouraging better cooperation
- Developing leadership
- Making better use of talent
- Strengthen feedback culture
- Objectifying talent selection
These are legitimate goals.
But each test measures something different.
And not every challenge requires a personality model.
Let us first clarify what the most commonly used models really measure.
From team building to stronger organisational culture
Start with these four questions:
- Is this mainly a communication problem?
- Is this an energy or role distribution problem?
- Is this a leadership or awareness question?
- Is this a culture or structure question?
Only then do you choose the model.
The most commonly used models; what do they measure fundamentally?
🔴 DISC - behavioural preference in interaction (The colour test)
DISC (or Insights) is based on the work of William Moulton Marston and distinguishes four behavioural styles:
- Dominance - direct, results-oriented
- Influence - social, enthusiastic
- Steadiness - stable, supportive
- Conscientiousness - analytical, precise
DISC measures visible behaviour in interaction.
It looks at how someone expresses themselves, not at who someone essentially is.
Strong in:
- Improving communication
- Quickly creating common language
- Discussing team dynamics
- Working in a sales and customer-oriented way
Not suitable for:
- Deep personality analysis
- Selection decisions
- Identity work
DISC is a behavioural lens. Not an identity model. It is very easy to understand, with the 4 quadrants and the colours making it very sticky. We often find that it does get reduced too much to its essence. You then get reactions in a group from sales, for example: “Awel das ne rooie” be careful with that. Or that's ne blauwe, he needs more figures. Au fond there is some truth in that, but the pitfall lies in not wanting to listen to the other, and locking him into a role.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful"
George Box
Freelance mussel (and Statistician)
🌹 Leary's Rose - interaction patterns
Leary's Rose positions behaviour on two axes:
- Above ↔ Below (influence)
- Together ↔ Against (relationship)
Core principle: Behaviour evokes complementary behaviour.
The model does not measure personality, but relational dynamics.
Strong in:
- Analysing conflicts
- Strengthen feedback culture
- Making power dynamics visible
Not suitable for:
- Individual character analysis
- Selection
It is an interaction model, not a test in the strict sense. But this one is mega-interesting to start looking at behaviour in a given situation. We really like to use it in short moments of reflection just after a game. “How were you in this exercise now, in function of your colleagues and cooperation?”. The model also gives a very fine side note, if someone shows offensive behaviour, for example, it is useful to take back a little gas. If someone moves more into the background, someone stands up. it finely captures the possible dynamics.
🌊 Talents in the Collective - collective contribution
This model starts from nine core talents (such as Perfector, Bridge Builder, Inspirer, Validator, Thinker, Visionary, Innovator, Doer, Integrator).
Uniquely:
- Everyone holds all talents
- The model works with pace and rhythm
- The collective is central
It measures contribution to the whole, not individual label.
Strong in:
- Talent management
- Team culture
- Ownership
- Collective intelligence
- Energy distribution
This is a developmental model, not a diagnostic tool. A very fine tool from our own design, looking at each individual as a function of the collective.
What is your talent in the collective?
Complete the free 35-question test, and afterwards receive a very comprehensive report with your results. Tips and tricks for yourself (and the collective)
🔄 Kolb - learning and development preference
Kolb describes learning as a cycle of:
- Experienced
- Reflect
- Understanding
- Experiment
The model measures how people learn and develop.
Strong in:
- Training design as in game-based learning
- Change processes
- Onboarding
It is not about personality, but about learning movement. but very useful to know from your people where their learning style lies, in order to draw up learning pathways based on this.
🎭 Archetypes - identity and meaning
The 12 archetypes (Hero, Sage, Magician, Caregiver, Explorer...) work on a symbolic level.
They do not measure behaviour or personality, but identity and meaning.
Strong in:
- Cultural development
- Mission and vision
- Branding
- Obtaining transformation or change
This model works at the level of story and consciousness.
🧠 Big Five - stable personality dimensions
The Big Five is science-based and measures five dimensions:
- Openness
- Conscientiousness
- Extraversion
- Pleasantness
- Emotional stability
The model measures relatively stable personality traits.
Strong in:
- Selection
- Leadership development
- Long-term estimates
- Strategic team composition
Less suitable for:
- Less accessible, high degree of “having to dig in” to be something with it.
- Rapid team interventions
- Playful formats
Big Five is a structural personality tool. The questions are very relevant to engage with people on....
🧩 MBTI - cognitive preferences
MBTI is based on Jung's work and works with four preferred dimensions:
- Extraversion - Introversion
- Sensing - Intuition
- Thinking - Feeling
- Judging - Perceiving
This makes 16 different combinations possible. ENTP, ENFJ,...
The model measures how people process information and make decisions.
Strong in:
- Self-reflection
- Understanding diversity of thought
- Team dialogue
Not suitable for:
- Performance forecast
- Selection
MBTI is about preference, not ability. To our senses, the 16 differences makes it more complex to do in workshops, but for personal reflection it is quite suitable. The 4 axes give lots of room to take questions from.
🔺 Enneagram - drives and coping mechanisms
The Enneagram distinguishes 9 types, each with:
- Core motivation
- Core anxiety
- Stress direction
- Growth Direction
The model looks at underlying drivers and automatic patterns.
Strong in:
- Coaching
- Leadership development
- Awareness of stress behaviour
Not suitable for:
- Rapid team diagnostics
- Light team building
This model touches identity and requires careful guidance.
⚙️ Working Genius - energy in the work process
Working Genius by Lencioni describes six energies needed to take work from idea to execution:
Wonder - Invention - Discernment - Galvanising - Enablement - Tenacity
The model measures what energises someone in the work process.
Strong in:
- Explaining and optimising team dynamics
- Task distribution
- Motivation
- Burnout prevention
- Optimise project flow
Not intended for:
- Deep personality analysis
It's not about who you are, but where you flow.
What all these models have in common
They are valuable.
But they each look at a different layer:
- Behaviour
- Interaction
- Cognition
- Personality
- Energy
- Collective dynamics
- Id.
And this is where things often go wrong.
The real shift: from model to organisational layer
The question is not:
“Which test should we do?”
The question is:
At what layer of our organisation is the problem?
I distinguish six layers of organisational culture.
Key question: do we understand each other?
Symptoms:
- Tensions
- Misinterpretations
- Feedback becomes personal
Suitable models:
- DISC
- Leary's rose
Key question: is everyone in their strengths?
Symptoms:
- Fatigue
- Unfair division of labour
- Low engagement
- Many starts, few finishes
Suitable models:
- Working Genius
- Talents in the Collective
Key question: is our process working?
Symptoms:
- Lots of meetings, little output
- Ideas remain on the table
- Insufficient follow-up
Here, process frameworks are sometimes more important than personality tests. Although of course it is helpful if you know what energises your people 😉
Key question: how do we grow as leaders?
Symptoms:
- Recurring patterns
- Clashing styles
- Limited self-reflection
Suitable models:
- Big Five
- Enneagram
- MBTI
Key question: who do we want to be?
Symptoms:
- Low engagement
- Unspoken values
- Resistance to change
Suitable models:
- Archetypes
- Value models
- Systemic frameworks
Key question: is our organisation clearly built?
Symptoms:
- Unclear roles
- Decision-making stalled
- Lack of accountability
This is often where not testing, but clear design helps.
Why this distinction is crucial
Many organisations make this mistake:
They have a structure problem; and thus take a personality test.
They have a culture problem and organise a team building.
They have an energy problem and analyse behaviour.
That is not a lack of commitment.
That is a diagnostic error.
From team building to stronger organisational culture
Team building is valuable.
Personality tests can be valuable.
But only if they fit within the broader design.
A metaphor:
A team building without architecture is like building a beautiful kitchen in a house with cracks in the foundation.
The architect first looks at:
- Fundament
- Support structure
- Energy flow
- Coherence
And then chooses the right instrument.
And especially if personality tests are not used to start conversations. If it sticks to a test, you better not do anything - or just play paintball with your team.
The invitation
Maybe you are not looking for a test.
Maybe you are looking for clarity on:
- Where your architecture cracks
- Where energy leaks
- Where culture chafes
- Where leadership gets stuck
Personality tests deepen the conversation.
Architecture determines sustainable change.
Want to discover at which organisational layer your question is located?
Then we will not start a test.
We start with an architectural talk.
Connecting action in the mossels pot
14 July 2026
26 June 2026
Nederlands (België)
English (UK)
Français